Jones v. Becerra
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The court addressed Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in a Second Amendment case following a Ninth Circuit remand that vacated the prior denial and directed proceedings consistent with Bruen. The court denied the motion as moot and set a briefing schedule for the parties to re-file the motion and respond to the complaint.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction as moot“the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction as MOOT. [ECF No. 21.]” | agree with court The court's decision to deny the motion as moot is procedurally sound. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's prior order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with Bruen. Because the prior order was vacated, the motion was effectively reset. Denying the existing motion as moot to allow for a fresh filing under the new legal standard is a standard procedural mechanism to manage the docket and ensure the new legal framework is properly briefed. |
Setting of briefing schedule“The Court has reviewed Defendants’ request and finds good cause to issue the following briefing schedule:” | agree with court The court exercised its inherent authority to manage the case and set a schedule for the re-filing of the motion and the response to the complaint. This is a routine procedural order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural disposition that correctly follows the Ninth Circuit's mandate. It does not engage in substantive legal analysis because it is not deciding the merits of the preliminary injunction motion, but rather clearing the docket to allow for a new motion under the new legal standard. The reasoning is sufficient for a procedural order of this type.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 MATTHEW JONES, et al., Case No.: 19-cv-1226-L-AHG 13 Plaintiffs, ORDER: 14 v. (1) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 15 ROB BONTA, in his official capacity as PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS Attorney General of California, et al., 16 MOOT [ECF NO. 21] and Defendants. 17 (2) SETTING BRIEFING 18 SCHEDULE.
19 Before the Court is this Second Amendment rights case. On November 3, 2020, the 20 Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. [ECF No. 21 (Motion) ECF 21 No. 66 (Order).] On November 6, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth 22 Circuit Court of Appeals. [ECF No. 68.] On May 11, 2022, the appellate court affirmed 23 in part, and reversed and remanded in part, this Court’s order denying Plaintiffs’ 24 preliminary injunction. Jones v. Becerra, case no. 20-56174 (9th Cir. 2022). On July 25, 25 2022, Appellees Rob Bonta and Martin Horan filed a petition for panel re-hearing and 26 petition for rehearing en banc. On September 7, 2022, the Ninth Circuit granted the 27 request for panel rehearing, vacated the panels’ May 11, 2022, opinion, vacated this 28 1 Court’s order denying preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further 2 proceedings consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in New York 3 State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (“Bruen”), 597 U.S. ____; 142 S.Ct. 2111 4 (2022). [ECF No. 91], 5 As a result of the appellate court’s September 7, 2022 ruling, Plaintiffs preliminary 6 injunction motion [ECF no. 21] became pending again. On September 14, 2022, this 7 Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing discussing the impact of Bruen on 8 Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion. [ECF No. 92.] The parties timely filed 9 supplemental briefing. [ECF Nos. 95, 96.] 10 The Court finds that Bruen represents a change in the legal framework this Court 11 applied when deciding Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion, therefore, pursuant to 12 the appellate court’s direction, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary 13 injunction as MOOT. [ECF No. 21.] 14 Defendants’ have requested time to submit additional evidence and substantive 15 briefing. (Def. Supp. Brief. at 39 [ECF No. 96.]) The Court has reviewed Defendants’ 16 request and finds good cause to issue the following briefing schedule: 17 1. Should Plaintiffs choose to re-file the motion, they must do so no later than 18 January 16, 2023. Any response in opposition is due no later than March 16, 19 2023. Any reply is due no later than April 17, 2023. 20 2. Defendants shall respond to the complaint no later than January 16, 2023. 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 3. To the extent the parties request additional discovery regarding Plaintiffs’ 2 preliminary injunction motion, if any, they are directed to contact Magistrate 3 Judge Goddard’s chambers to address the necessity and extent of discovery and 4 set a schedule consistent with the schedule set forth above. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED 7 ||Dated: December 14, 2022 1 owe plete g H . James Lorenz, 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28